Talk:Star Trek Concordance
William Sargent I am trying to get some info on William Sargent who appeared in an episode of Mannix and Cannon--Mustanggirl 01:22, October 18, 2009 (UTC) :Check the link to his page there. -- sulfur 01:30, October 18, 2009 (UTC) Is the 1977 edition officially licensed? I heard somewhere that the 1977 edition was a licensed Star Trek publication, since it was published by Ballantine, which had the license to publish Star Trek books. Does anyone know if this is true? NetSpiker (talk) 08:37, August 22, 2016 (UTC) *Prior to 1979 the, until then somewhat passive, franchise farmed out print licenses to third parties of which Ballantine was the one for reference books – most notably the legendary The Making of Star Trek – and novels/novelizations, with Bantam Books later added for the latter category. It was only with the release of that the, now far more pro-active, franchise opted to take hold of the entirety of Trek product lines themselves, with subsidiary Pocket Books for book titles. For a historical overview see: Franchise...--Sennim (talk) 10:02, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::My copy says: ::STAR TREK CONCORDANCE ::COPYRIGHT © 1976 BY PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION AND BJO TRIMBLE ::ALL RIGHTS RESERVED UNDER INTERNATIONAL AND PAN-AMERICAN COPYRIGHT CONVENTIONS. PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES BY BALLANTINE BOOKS, A DIVISION OF RANDOM HOUSE, INC., NEW YORK AND SIMULTANEOUSLY IN CANADA BY BALLANTINE BOOKS OF CANADA, LTD., TORONTO CANADA. ::LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 76-9778 ::ISBN 0-345-25137-7-695 ::MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ::FIRST EDITION: OCTOBER 1976 ::BALLANTINE BOOKS/NEW YORK ::In the Introduction, Trimble distinguishes it from her earlier fan-published/self-distributed amateur version, and thanks among many others "Lou Mindling and Mike Policare for being the only people at Paramount who seemed to care." ::While not directly related to your question, the Key notes: ::"All material used in this book has been taken directly from scripts, supplemented by viewing the episodes as aired. Discrepancies may occur--for example, when a first-season show was cut for later syndication and scenes or phrases listed in the book were removed, perhaps never to be seen again. There were often differences between a script and the aired version, due to last-minute changes or a difference in how an actor pronounced a word; attempts have been made to tie everything together, but how successful this has been will depend on how many interesting mistakes the reader can find. If nothing else, this book should provdide a field day for nitpickers! ::''Imaginative additions to the Star Trek universe by writers when novelizing scripts, or the license taken by anyone else who may have chosen to add extraneous material to their own works, have not been included in the Concordance. We tried to adhere strictly to the Star Trek universe created by Gene Roddenberry, and added to only by the writers for the actual show itself." ::--Side Rat (talk) 10:07, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Howza wowza. I think the minor expo and Franchise link was fine. - Compvox (talk) 10:19, August 22, 2016 (UTC) This means that it is officially licensed. I think the article should be modified to make that clear. NetSpiker (talk) 10:41, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::Well, yes, at the time. But all of that colophon text belongs in the bgnotes to justify the position? - Compvox (talk) 10:50, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::I added a "Pna-inaccurate" notice, but I'm not going to be doing any editing at the moment.--Side Rat (talk) 11:17, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::I removed the PNA. Use the info from the colophon page to make bold edits while using common sense. - Compvox (talk) 11:35, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::Hey man, I'm not going to edit war with you over it, but the article's clearly got issues from the first paragraph on down, problems with POV and lack of citations too. I'd take a further look into it, but I happen to be getting ready for bed. I'm as aware of those policies you cited as you are. The point of PNA is to bring wider attention to things that need fixing, so that they get fixed faster thanks to more contributors being aware of them, and as a bonus it also lets readers who are coming here to get good info know they should beware. I can't believe you're telling me or others to "use the info to make bold edits" when you've just removed a PNA tag without fixing anything! Good night. --Side Rat (talk) 12:30, August 22, 2016 (UTC) :::No war intended Side Rat. But on the other hand you brought it up, without fixing anything. - Compvox (talk) 12:42, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::I don't know how this page works, so i hope i'm doing this right. I came here because my copy reads the same as this. I was confused by Memory Alpha saying the publish date is June 2, 1977? Wondering if this list is missing an edition, or if the june 2 is maybe a u.s. release date as opposed to canada, maybe... Now i'm even more curious---- Most likely, Amazon.com got the publication date wrong and Memory Alpha editors just copied Amazon.com. I've now changed the date to October 1976. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:12, October 17, 2016 (UTC) Concordance names for M-113 creature, Denevan neural parasite and Beta XII-A entity The names "M-113 creature", "Denevan neural parasite" and "Beta XII-A entity" were popularized by the Star Trek Encyclopedia and did not appear in the original episodes. Did the Star Trek Concordance, which predated the Encyclopedia, use the same names or different ones? --NetSpiker (talk) 09:09, November 27, 2016 (UTC) :* 1) "M113 Monster" (cast), "M113 creature" (lexicon), salt vampire is also thrown about too. :* 2) "Flying parasites" (organized as "Parasites, flying" in lexicon), as there is the fact we are overlooking in our title that they are not from Deneva, afterall. :* 3) "Entity". : Other Concordance names v. our names: "Planet-eater" or "Berserker" v. Planet killer ( ); "Vampire cloud" v. "Dikironium cloud creature" ( ); "Cloud" or "Cloud brain" v. Cosmic cloud ( ). --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:26, November 28, 2016 (UTC)